Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The jury is still out on evolution

  1. Jun 7, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "the jury is still out" on evolution

    http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=151471&source=r_science
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 7, 2005 #2
    Well if I had to choose between either Charles Darwin or George W. Bush for an opinion, advice, or the time of day, I think that it is painfully obvious which one it would be. When your leading argument against science is "it's bad", you don't have very much credibility with me.
     
  4. Jun 7, 2005 #3
    Hey Canada!

    Bush and his ilk are just corrupt politicians and anti-American, anti-science and anti-world. Forget their bull. Proceed.

    Evolution's not a theory, but a fact. Leave it at that and proceed.

    Try Zero-based science: don't believe anything without evidence and/or "fit" with what we know for sure. Quickly analyze everything and you'll soon see a pattern emerge. Let's call that body of knowledge "reality". Any questions?

    There's no such things as god(s) or ghosts or life after death or fate or the paranormal. I just saved ya a lot of time, distress, failure and error. You're welcome.

    Now, knowing this, what do WE do to save the world, ourselves and all humanity?

    Peace and love,
    NN
     
  5. Jun 8, 2005 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Welcome to PF, Naturalist! And right on!
     
  6. Jun 8, 2005 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, the sentiment is nice but the facts are the facts, and one fact is that these are the people running the country. But more than that it speaks to the lack of confidence in science found in those who know little about it. There is in fact an anti-science mentality found in many people these days. I have said this for a long time, and it has finally come home to roost.

    I know an elementary school teacher here in Oregon who teachers her students exactly what was stated: A theory [in math or science] is an unsubstantiated guess.
     
  7. Jun 8, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I guess I should add that to dismiss anything not understood as paranormal nonsense is also anti-science.
     
  8. Jun 9, 2005 #7
    Hi Ivan,
    I'm a bit of a primative at this stuff, but let's go. Are ya after the truth and the complete truth and why? Because that's the exclusive pursuit that benefits all to the max. That established, there are two ways that science and knowledge are advanced - to say what is true and what is not true, the advancement of the latter frees up the resources to pursue the former.
    No god(s) ghosts, luck fate, and paranormal. What's that leave? Science and reality, dear one - the way, truth and light. All the former are inept, undeserving, cheaters, theives, posers and liars for their own, (mispercieved) ends and not that of the general good and progress which is the whole basis for science. Are you startin' to understand? Supernaturalism's just a scheme to commit fraud. Nothing more and nothing less. Science needs to eliminate it - nothing more and nothing less.
     
  9. Jun 9, 2005 #8
    Hi Team,
    I'm from Nebraska. Go Big Red! I was educated at the finest institution in my state. What I found is we have more than the resources required to dispatch all theism, all religious fundamentalism, all bull forever - but we have not acted on it and are suffering mightily for that failure to act. Let us now dispatch forever the concepts of god(s), ghosts, life after death, luck, fate and the paranormal and free humanity from these horrible scourages that cripple and destroy humanity. If we do this, we will be seen by posterity as the greatest generation to date - which is what they expected of us.
    I'm a social scientist - an empiricist. I'm just trying ta get the absolute truth - and, I think, all these so called "great" philosophical questions that have been held "unanswerable" were answerable - and they're easily answered too. As it was in Pre-Copernican and post-Copernican astrophysics. Cut the bull and and all comes clear and we need clarity - and courage - to proceed.
    No god(s), ghosts, life-after-death, luck, fate, or paranormal. The task is not up to me to disprove these "theories", but on the proponents of them to prove them to me.
     
  10. Jun 9, 2005 #9
    Although i agree with you that people who dismiss the evolution (for discussions sake lets keep it on evolution theory) on religious basis are somewhat narrow minded.
    There are already scientists who are trying to get some mutual standpoint.
    The stantpoint beeing: Species do evolve but the evolution is directed by a higher beeing.

    Agree with it or not, this i think is possibly the only way you´ll ever get some support from the mild to strong religious side.
    Religious extremists will never accept anything that isn´t clearly stated in the bible so you can easily write them off.

    Now playing the devils advocate: Isn´t the truth just the most commonly accepted idea?
     
  11. Jun 9, 2005 #10
    The truth and generally accepted ideas can be one and the same, but it doesn't mean that they are so. At times there are always people who believe otherwise when in reality they will be proven right.

    The bigger problem seems to be, that the misguided ones are the ones most willing to stand up and yell their beliefs. Science isn't forced on anyone for the most part. That scientific theory is so misinterpreted is a greater indication of the fact that the scientific community doesn't reach out to the general masses to educate them.

    Speaking US specific, the two biggest publicity entities, at least in my opinion, are the church and the president/government. These are the groups that are most often heard from, and thus their words are put into the minds of the general population much more frequently. Any time any scientific information is in the media, it is about new "miracle drugs", or big stories that be applied to unrealistic stories (such as the T-Rex tissue and Jurassic Park)
     
  12. Jun 9, 2005 #11
    Good evening scholars,
    Marijn: "Now playing the devils advocate: Isn´t the truth just the most commonly accepted idea?"

    Right on! You're right on the trail! Your answer: Not at all, and you know better. The truth IS NOT democratically determined. At one time everyone in the whole world, but one or a few, believed the Earth was flat. Truth exists independent of beliefs, being and desire. That's why empiricism is so rigorous and (good) scientists are (relatively) so critical and irreverent. But the truth is the real deal, the only game in town.
    Personally I became very interested in the truth and only the truth when I became a pilot. Anything other than the full and complete truth is hazardous to pilots and the more truth and knowledge the better. Pilots have to live in that mindset in order to merely survive. Bull kills at supersonic speed when you're flying. Pilots have become so used to this everconstant pursuit, relatively austere lifestyle that, by the time I came to know them, I found a body of persons who were unique and wonderful for no apparent reason.
    Now, let's all become pilots - in our lives and all our many, varied pursuits. We don't take no bull because we can't afford the risk. Throttle up, maintain altitude and airspeed, check all your instruments against each other - and THINK.
    The theistic premise is ludicrous - it is not consistent with all else we know and, therefore must be quickly, if not immediately dismissed so we can get on to all other possible solutions. Those few possiblities of what's going on describe better what we sense, experience and know. Ya do have to decide and act accordingly.
    This is a ground controlled approach. You're on flight path, on airspeed. Execute landing checklist. Welcome home.

    Peace and love,
    NN
     
  13. Jun 9, 2005 #12
    Hey Northstar7,
    We have you on radar.
    "The bigger problem seems to be, that the misguided ones are the ones most willing to stand up and yell their beliefs. Science isn't forced on anyone for the most part. That scientific theory is so misinterpreted is a greater indication of the fact that the scientific community doesn't reach out to the general masses to educate them."

    All true, but an old problem. The louder they yell and more they try to intimidate and humiliate their opponents the more I'm convinced they have nothing of substance to offer - and considering events and developments of late, they are an extremely vacuous lot. All the more the pity for all of us though.

    Science isn't forced on persons because one ignores science at their own peril. Ignorance kills and life constantly enforces the lesson. We love science BECAUSE IT WORKS! Oh! the centuries of darkness humanity endured in it's absence! How many mystics spoke of flying before the Wright Bros really did? And now look - sixty years to go from Kitty Hawk to the Sea of Tranquility. What more demonstration of sheer peerless power to quickly and really solve problems do you need?
    And you ain't seen nothing yet . . . Wait 'til my science comes to the fore. Be of good cheer. The cavalry's comin'.

    Peace and love,
    NN
     
  14. Jun 10, 2005 #13

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This comment displays his ignorance on the status of the science of biology. For scientists, the jury is certainly not out. The scientific evidence and support for evolution is simply overwhelming.

    So that sentiment is what is being pushed to the public by many creationist groups. They reject the theory of evolution (beginning on religious grounds) and are working hard to "teach the controversy" in public schools even though the controversy is non-scientific. They are making no headway in the scientific community.
     
  15. Jun 10, 2005 #14

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Although some scientists may hold that personal view, it is not part of any scientific theory. For one thing, the supernatural is outside the realm of science. Also, there is no well supported evidence to show the guiding hand of a higher being (claims of 'irreduceable complexity' are not standing up to scientific scrutiny). So, agree with it or not, it is out of place in a science classroom. Scientific theories should be built up from the facts and not mandated down from hopes/beliefs.

    Except when they obtain political positions of power (school boards, legislature, presidency).

    There's Reality, and then there's our understanding of Reality. Science doesn't offer "Truth". It offers explanations (best possible from the best possible data at that time).
     
  16. Jun 11, 2005 #15
    Marijn said:
    "Although some scientists may hold that personal view, it is not part of any scientific theory. For one thing, the supernatural is outside the realm of science."

    Woah!
    You're going right past the solution. There is nothing outside the realm of science.
    when you realize that, everything about supernaturalism becomes entirely known and knowable. Supernaturalism is not an accepted premise. It's crap and to give it any credibility at all is a mistake. Scientists don't just give credibility to any theory or idea. Supernaturalism has to be dismissed until inconclusive proof of it's validity is shown.
     
  17. Jun 12, 2005 #16

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed


    You are perfectly correct about the rescript of science. The question is whether the approach of science
    as it has existed since the seventeenth century, has anything to say about the data provided by supernaturalists. The history of their interactions is not encouraging.
     
  18. Jun 12, 2005 #17
    If you want to talk about the burden of proof, then it's on you. You are making the affirmative claim that there's "no such thing" as all of those said entities, therefore you have to prove all said entities do not exist in order for your claim to have any validity.

    Is it really your agenda to "dispatch all theism"? I can tell you this isn't the forum to do it, you may want to try: http://discussions.godandscience.org/

    Not everyone has the same senses, experience and knowledge. In fact if you think everyone sees the world exactly the same as you then you're way off on your own empirical observations. Do you think everyone has the exact same flight path as yours? Do you really want to be colliding with everyone else's jet. At least from your close-minded perspective, at least figure these other pilots are just flying through a lot of clouds and turbulence and write them off as misguided but you're not going to change anyone's mind.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  19. Jun 12, 2005 #18
    "The jury is still out on evolution."

    A verdict is just now evolving out of thier deliberations.

    If being president is an example of survival of the fittest then, there's probably some evolutionary mechanisim that has determined when/how/why your president survived in a fit manner as president for his second term. Perhaps this is your opportunity to hold him accountable for any decisions deemed inappropriate before he builds his own library with your money and becomes less accessable.
     
  20. Jun 13, 2005 #19
    Ok, that's stupid. To look at it from an entirely utilitarian point of view, what other theory can explain the evidence for evolution? Really, creationism doesn't explain sh it. Will it help further our understanding of biology? no.
     
  21. Jun 13, 2005 #20

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There seems to be a hugely misguided anti-religious sentiment on this board that is entirely laughable. According to people on this board and on this thread specifically, it seems like theres a portion of our country that believes rocket ships must be built based off blueprints in the bible and that we are demanding that all professors teach that evolution is stupid. Exactly who are these people? Why have i not seen or heard about any of these people? And why arent any of the schools in my state being overrun and diseased by these people? People on this board make it seem like thats exactly what happen but... I'm not seeing it... where am i suppose to look?

    I do find a lot of people like Nebraska who are disgustingly intollerant of peoples beliefs and convictions. I have not exactly seen any priests walk into any quantum mechanics lectures and demand the class be canceled yet ive seen many horrific protests against religion. Comparing all the people i know, anyone whos done drugs, committed criminal acts, and basically act like jerks to people is roughly ... 80% chance fo being atheist (or 8/10 of the people who fit that description are atheists). I'd truely love to hear the basis for this disgusting rhetoric that "getting rid of all religion will make the world a better place" that people such as Nebraska cry out.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The jury is still out on evolution
  1. Jury duty (Replies: 20)

  2. Grand Jury (Replies: 46)

Loading...